So what do the election results mean for transportation here in the region? Here are a few guesses/questions:
Nationally, Oregon will now have two strong majority voices on the House Transporation Committee (with DeFazio probably the vice-chair), which should be a great position for earmarks. Will a Democratic House mean more emphasis on alternative modes? The Republican House was already at odds with the White House on transportation issues, the new House won’t feel the same need to exercise restraint in their disagreement with the President.
At the state level, does Democratic control mean more programs like Connect Oregon? Hard to say.
Locally, will the strong positive response to Measure 26-80 and the election of Kathryn Harrington, who is reasonably in alignment with the current Council (compared to her opponent who essentially ran against Metro), give the Metro Council some confidence to keep moving a progressive transportation agenda forward? It’s also likely that at the JPACT table Clackamas County’s voice will change an octave or so as the County Commission will have a majority of two progressive women.
Interesting times. What do you think?
19 responses to “Reading the Tea Leaves”
Very interesting to say the least. Overall, it looks like lots of good news for the local transportation system. The priorities of Congress are now going to be a lot closer to those of the Portland region. This should make it easier to expand both the streetcar and light rail systems.
I’m particuarly interested in what is going to happen in Clackamas County. The election of Lynn Pederson to the county commission defintely brings a much needed change to that part of the region. The county will certainly focus more on transit, transit oriented development, and urban services. Although they have been big supporters of I-205 MAX, the previous county commission was overly focused on the promotion of new freeways and big-box development.
I’m largely thrilled by the election results, but let’s not hope for more earmarks to be sent our way. Earmarking is a politically corrupt means, regardless of the ends. It should be eliminated. If we’re going to fund alternative transportation modes — and we should — then it should be done straight-up, without earmarking.
Nathan, I agree with you, but as long as the game is played the way it is, I’m glad we’re well positioned.
Quick, let’s propose a high speed rail bond!
joking, of course. =P
It’s difficult to say, at the national level, what this election may mean for Oregon. Sure, there may be the potential for some earmarks — but the SAFETEA bill isn’t up for re-authorization until 2008, if I remember correctly, so between now and then, mostly the action will be in dispursing already-approved funding. I’m not sure how much room there will be for earmarking until the next reauthorization cycle, though there probably is some room with regards to the Small Starts program, which I believe will require additional federal action.
I agree that earmarking is a horrible way to do business, but it’s the way that things get done in Washington right now. Until there is federal transportation policy reform (which may come soon, actually…) this is unlikely to change.
At the local level, I’m very glad that 26-80 passed. Does this mean that the Sellwood Gap project might move forward? When might we finally be able to see a seamless connection between the Springwater and the Eastside Esplanade?
I wonder what post Blumenauer may wind up with in the new Congress?
I actually think that it’s more important to change the rules of the game than to spend time trying to play it well. A substantial reason for the Republicans’ loss is that they had lost all fiscal discipline, going particularly crazy with their earmarking. I think an increasing number of Americans are disgusted by this. Earmarking is intrinsically undemocratic, in that it bypasses any discussion and effectively any vote about where the money is going. It’s inherently impossible to discipline, unless it’s eliminated outright. And no matter how much I might like spending money on [fill in the blank], I’m not willing to mortgage our children’s futures for it, or do it in an undemocratic fashion.
If the Democrats spend their time playing the same game that the Republicans were just playing, then a few years down the road, they’ll meet the same fate that the Republicans just met. I’d rather that didn’t happen; we need to play this game for the long-term. Therefore, I would support the creation of bills to specifically fund public transportation initiatives, for example, but I would oppose any and ALL earmarks, no matter their other merits.
Nathan-
I don’t disagree with you, but these things, I understand, take time. In the short run, Oregon is probably going to be well-positioned to take advantage of any residual momentum that the current way of doing things still has left in it prior to enactment of reform.
After reform, Oregon may well continue to be well-positioned, but this depends on the shape that reform may take. If you’re curious about the reform effort, here is the commission that was created by SAFETEA to study the proposition:
http://www.surfacecommission.gov/
If anything is going to happen with regards to federal transportation policy and funding reform, this commission’s report will be the likeliest vehicle at this point.
cheers,
~Garlynn
This might not be specifically Portland, but it appears the Cherriots (Salem/Keizer Transit District) ballot measure failed by a very slim margin. Marion Co. results: YES 25,067, 49.39%; NO 25,685, 50.61%. Polk Co. results: Yes 4,393, 46.23%; No 5,109, 53.77%.
I know, some people out there might wonder why I bring this up, but what kind of people are we if we benefit from 7 day a week public transit from Washougal to Oregon City and Forest Grove to Troutdale; and someone in Salem or Keizer who is financially, medically, or otherwise unable to move looses their job due to further transit cutbacks there, and we say ‘oh that’s too bad, that’s their problem?’
Hmm, I don’t see *anything* about transportation on the platform for the Oregon House Democrats.
This doesn’t bode well for improving the transportation system in Oregon over the next two years, and certainly not for the Salem transit system (such as it is: how exactly does one successfully run a transit system in such a backwards, low-density place as Salem?).
In fact, I’ve found that there is pretty much a lack of a discussion of transportation in Oregon at the statewide level. Anybody know of some community conversation taking place that I’m just not aware of?
Garlynn –
The older neighborhoods (say between I-5 on the east, the river on the west, 99E on the north and Willamette U to the south) are not so low-density, and in fact resemble NE Portland a number of ways. There is even something of a sensible grid system in the older areas, and Salem has a downtown transit area (I hesitate to call it a “mall”).
I will say, however, that portions of the legislature can be _quite_ high “density” at times. :-)
– Bob R.
From Garlynn:
This doesn’t bode well for improving the transportation system in Oregon over the next two years, and certainly not for the Salem transit system (such as it is: how exactly does one successfully run a transit system in such a backwards, low-density place as Salem?).
The same way that a transit system operates in towns like Hillsboro, Beaverton, or Gresham.
Salem/Keizer metropolitan area has a population of 210,000 – that’s the population of Beaverton, Hillsboro, and everything inbetween; and still some more people. Or most of eastern Multnomah County (including parts of east Portland).
If Salem/Keizer can’t support a decent transit operation, surely MAX should have no support west of Washington Park.
I have been wondering about the Salem-Keizer Transit measure and am sad to hear that it appears to have failed. I used to live down there and still have family there. It is interesting because it actually got a majority of the vote in the spring when the chamber of commerce, I understand, opposed it. However, I’m not surprised since I tend to think of Salem as an anti-govt town, maybe out of having the state HQ. They have already implemented service reductions and a fare increase.
Also, I agree that the older section of Salem (where I lived) is actually halfway decent transportation- and land use-wise. However, I would include some of South Salem and not use “99E”, which follows I-5. And I also disagree with their “transit mall” designation, since buses use it to layover and not pass thru.
Can you say “Cascadia High Speed Rail Corridor Study”? Justification?: Opening date of the 2028 Summer Olympics in Seattle and Vancouver BC. Oregon and Portland could be a supporting role player and HSR could give the citizens of the World another look at us. Maybe we could get some minor events (like table tennis, popular in China).
Peter D. and Earl B. should work with the Washington delegation on getting on with this very important rail corridor (freight and passenger)
Hopefully, our new jobs centers at Rock Creek/Damascus/Boring in the Sunrise Corridor; I84 to US26 Connector for Springwater; a toll road from US26 to I5@I205 to releave Canyon Road and I5 North of Downtown PDX will see federal support faster to get our homes versus jobs equaled out on both sides of the Willamette.
All politicans on both sides of the Columbia need to seriously consider putting tolls on the current bridge and any futures bridges.
Speaking of future bridges, how about this idea for the Columbia River Gorge and alternative transportation. Build a pedestrian suspension bridge between Troutdale and Camas/Washugal. Excellent views for tourism (sets up the ability to loop the Gorge by foot or bike) and creates a link for commuting between the two states at the far East end of the Metro area.
Support for Bio-diesel, MAX expansion, streetcar lines, and human powered corridors would be great. Maybe Earl will get more US Reps to understand the advantages of UGBs for things like “Peak Oil” and reducing reliance on foreign energy supplies.
Just some thoughts.
Ray
OK, apologies to Salem for implying that a transit system won’t work there because of the generally low-density development patterns that are seen in many areas, especially around the I-5/99-W corridors. Probably, if the Salem transit system were to attempt a Frequent Service model, like Tri-Met’s, they might see some ridership boosts.
I agree that high speed rail is one part of the solution for providing an alternative to travel on I-5. But, what about the rest of the state? How about passenger rail links from Portland to Medford, to Bend, to Hood River/Pendleton, to St. Helens/Astoria and to Seaside/Tillamook/Newport? I think that Oregon needs to have this discussion…
Salem-Keizer transit, in conjunction with the cities of Salem and Keizer, is in the process of implementing a “high priority transportation corridor”. This corridor will connect downtown Salem with Keizer via Broadway & River Rd N.
This will include queue jumps at several intersections, better bus stops w/ traveler information and frequent service (15 min)[among other things]. I’m not sure what the failure of the tax levy will do to the service portion of this concept. The rest uses capital funding and is not impacted by the vote.
One clarification: The tax levy was to provide operating funds. After the May election SAMTD reduced service (but not routes) and cut some staff. Apparently there will be further cuts as a result of Tuesday’s vote.
Probably, if the Salem transit system were to attempt a Frequent Service model, like Tri-Met’s, they might see some ridership boosts.
They have actually kind of done that on one route. It doesn’t have Frequent Service-like marketing or treatments, but it does run every 15 minutes during the day on weekdays. And either because of that or because the route goes to the community college and along their major commercial strip, it can get 4000 riders (40%) a day.
Garlynn wrote:
I agree that high speed rail is one part of the solution for providing an alternative to travel on I-5. But, what about the rest of the state? How about passenger rail links from Portland to Medford, to Bend, to Hood River/Pendleton, to St. Helens/Astoria and to Seaside/Tillamook/Newport? I think that Oregon needs to have this discussion…
Now here is something for which Oregon “doesn’t have the population density” to support.
What Oregon could use is an integrated, interoperable and publicized intercity bus system, connecting every town in Oregon with a population of at least 1,000 with a business center (a town of at least 10,000 or greater); the centers to each other, so that any resident of Oregon can reasonably travel to any other city in Oregon.
HSR is simply way too expensive, and would offer little to no benefit for Oregon. Look at the existing “corridor” that we have between Portland and Eugene. The total average daily ridership on those trains could be put into two highway busses with room to spare. While Portland-north has serious potential (and proof is in the ridership); is that truly what Oregon’s elected representatives are supposed to crawl over? I don’t see Washington’s elected officials supporting Oregon projects…
What Oregon could use is an integrated, interoperable and publicized intercity bus system, connecting every town in Oregon with a population of at least 1,000 with a business center (a town of at least 10,000 or greater); the centers to each other, so that any resident of Oregon can reasonably travel to any other city in Oregon.
Yes, yes, YES! This is exactly what we can use! It doesn’t have to be purely public transit, either – I wouldn’t mind either a fully private system or a public/private partnership, or something set up where different operators operate different routes.
I think it’s too bad the only transit link that I know of between Portland and Clatsop Co. runs once a day – leaving Portland at around 6 PM and returning from Astoria at something like 7:45 AM the next morning. I’ve mentioned it here countless times that I’d love to ride a bus to Seaside or Cannon Beach or Astoria (the exact city of these three not that important, as they have a fixed-route, scheduled 6-day a week transit system in Clatsop Co.) that leaves in the morning and returns to Portland in the evening, so it can accommodate people wanting to take day trips to the coast, spend money in Oregon as tourism dollars; and people that drive have the option of leaving their car at home, and those who don’t drive have the option without having to either wait for a friend to go and get a ride from them.
As far as connecting cities in general, I think SMART/Cherriots 1X between Wilsonville and Salem is a great route (as long as you keep the transfers straight, you can go between Portland and Salem), and even TCTDs route between Portland and Tillamook (which I’ve never used, BTW, but only because Tillamook is actually inland a ways, when my family went there on one of our trips to the coast it felt like ‘another small town in Oregon’ to me, and there’s no Mo’s there).
So, essentially, what I’m saying is if anyone out there has either the resources or political firepower (too bad this is another of those ‘politics as usual’ issues) to pull off something like this, especially the route I’ve described above – let me know – I’d probably be one of the first in line.
I like the idea of intercity bus lines–sure would be a lot more cost effective than trying to expand AMTRAK to every fair to middlin size town in Oregon. In fact there are a number of bus companies serving routes in western Oregon.
Connecting Eastern Oregon —especially SE—poses a bigger challenge. Like Klamath Falls to Lakeview to Burns to Baker City. But, I think it would be cool. I think it could attract recreational riders—like bicyclists wanting to ride some scenic locations, but not necessarily a trek across the desert. Or backpackers heading to a specific spot–Like Owhyhee gorge. In fact helping buses have what it takes to accomodate bicyclists–such as locking racks–might give that industry a needed boost. And boost the tourism economies in those smaller towns.
A big complaint with “other ” Oregonians is that the Portland area gets way too much assistance.